If Canon Rumors continues to review lenses, (thanks and very much appreciated), please include some points how usable a lens for video work is. Is the lens breathing while adjusting the focus, did the color matches with other lenses from the series, is the image stable while pulling the focus or even zoom. How is the focus ring set up, very short on the end or very wide. Important points I think, and most lens reviews ignore that point.

Full disclosure: I don't shoot video. So any review I'd have based on video would be worse than a guy who did, I'll leave video to video guys doing reviews; they're more qualified. I want to express the "feel" of a lens more than the specs. It's hard to get away from them though, which is why they sneak up, but I want to stay away from precise measurements, from too many comparisons (though inevitable). I want to approach each lens from my own day-to-day working experience and qualify it under those parameters. That said, when I notice things, like the focus and zoom rings on the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II, I'll definitely include them in my review.

Thanks so much!

Logged

Peter Hill

Finally, a review of a Tilt+Shift lens which mentions the panoramic capabilities of the Shift function. I use the original 24mm Tilt+Shift lens, the 45mm and the 90mm all the time to create such images of landscapes. The merge in CS5 is seamless and distortion-free. (Other software programs try to correct for distortion that isn't there.)

I think the Rotate function is not publicised enough, and the review doesn't do it justice either. This function when combined with the Tilt, and careful aperture selection, gives VERY precise, angled, focus fields. Advertising shoots benefit greatly but again, so do landscapes!

I think the Rotate function is not publicised enough, and the review doesn't do it justice either. This function when combined with the Tilt, and careful aperture selection, gives VERY precise, angled, focus fields. Advertising shoots benefit greatly but again, so do landscapes!

Agreed on the Rotate. I didn't even realize that at first when I first got the lens to try out. Once I realized that, it was a whole other ball of wax. A ton of fun

I often hear about how this lens is the sharpest in the Canon arsenal and how it is sharper than the 24 f/1.4 MkII. Now, I haven't actually used it, so can't make a comparison, however, I was looking at the reviews for both lenses on Photozone the other night. Photozone also states that this lens is the sharpest of the two, but the data they present tells a different story. Granted, it is undoubtedly a meaningless difference in the real world, but at every common aperture, the MTF figures for the f/1.4 are slightly higher then the TS/E. Photozone seem to be marking the f/1.4 down because it falls apart at the corners wider than f/2, especially at f/1.4. However, I'm not aware of any other 24mm lens that can even shoot at f/1.4, so the marking down is actually pretty meaningless. I'm wondering if people are actually taking more notice of such a fact and also that generally, you are shooting wider on a TS/E lens (and therefore more in the sweetspot), when they say that the TS/E is sharper. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who is used to using both and has made a direct real world comparison for similar scenes. That said, the results are probably just as meaningless, as I needed a wide aperture for shooting the northern lights, which is the reason I went for the f/1.4 over the TS/E and Zeiss 21mm, otherwise it would have been a hard choice to choose between the three.

Also, this lens has an amazingly short minimum focus distance. You can almost focus on the lens cap -- and you probably can with an extension tube. That means that this lens lets you do wide-angle high-magnifcation near-macro shots like none other.

Ever tried a 12mm extension tube on an 16-35 ? at 16mm you can get that dust on your filter in focus

Thanks for taking the time to read and answer. This is one of the few lenses that makes really fun for video. It is a great lens. The sharpest lens I own.In video use, lenses fall very fast apart in terms of usability. If used like still lenses (e.g., no rack focus) they perform mostly excellent, sometimes even better than special Cine-lenses, go figure.

YES, I totally agree to focus on only things where your main expertise is. I might have to find a better way to express my wish. Perhaps that needs two reviewers. Nevertheless: we all have no money to waste, and to invest in glass is certainly expensive. To buy again is not fun. Knowledge and information about a lens helps to save money, because you might know a little bit better what to buy and what not. I use Canon L glass for my 4K film work and knowing the (cine) limitations of the glass makes me perform very well with it.

Thanks again, great review. I look forward to more. (Even focused on Still use only.)

Quote

Full disclosure: I don't shoot video. So any review I'd have based on video would be worse than a guy who did, I'll leave video to video guys doing reviews; they're more qualified. I want to express the "feel" of a lens more than the specs. It's hard to get away from them though, which is why they sneak up, but I want to stay away from precise measurements, from too many comparisons (though inevitable). I want to approach each lens from my own day-to-day working experience and qualify it under those parameters. That said, when I notice things, like the focus and zoom rings on the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II, I'll definitely include them in my review.

Also, this lens has an amazingly short minimum focus distance. You can almost focus on the lens cap -- and you probably can with an extension tube. That means that this lens lets you do wide-angle high-magnifcation near-macro shots like none other.

Ever tried a 12mm extension tube on an 16-35 ? at 16mm you can get that dust on your filter in focus

I wrote an article on this same lens, and how it can be used for portrait photography. I'm not a tilt-shift expert, but after trying to use it in this fashion for 3 weeks, I do have a bit of experience. Overall fantastic lens, I wish I could afford to own one myself.

I had a very interesting journey with Canon when I ordered my 24ts mk2 about 6weeks ago. I had just landed a nice interior architecture assignment and felt I could justify buying one of these...I come from a 4x5 background and have sorely missed shift and tilt! I ordered the lens and of course as luck would have it there were a few days unexplained delays in delivery with the result that I got it in the middle of shooting the assignment. I was a bit pressed for time so I didn't even notice that they had given me the mark I instead. That evening looking at the images I wasn't very impressed with sharpness nor CA especially in the corners. Only the next morning on my way to another assignment did I notice it was the old lens! Anyway after a few stressed phone calls Canon delivered another lens to me, this time a Mark II but after a few test shots I came to the conclusion that this one was even worse than the mark I. I phoned the Canon reps and the immediate response was that I obviously don't quite know how to use it etc etc. After speaking to the local product manager it transpired that they had given me a pre production lens, the serial number was only 063...but I was assured that they will stand by me and if I am not happy with the quality they will give me another one or a different lens or my money back...eventually about a fortnight later they managed to get me a newer sample...and eventually I now have a good if not superb lens. I am still waiting for my 'own' lens as this is only a loaner...

I have shot about three house with this lens since I got it and as I get more comfortable with it I am really starting to appreciate the sharpness and shift. I have not tried the tilt yet...but so far my most expensive lens ever is living up to expectations...very little almost unnoticeable distortion. Same with CA...almost none...I saw some traces in the corners on one image ...very sharp at f11 where I use it most of the time to get max depth of field..so, so far so good...!

symmar22

I agree with the comments, it is a superb lens in every aspect. I own one since almost 2 years now as well as a 90mm TS-E. I bought it mainly for architecture work, but in the end more than 50% of my work is done with it (mainly indoors architecture, landscape and gardens). I am a big fan of wide angles and the 24mm is so to say my standard lens. It's almost like having the possibilities of a view camera, but much easier to use thanks to the live view. I can confirm the the model 2 is a huge improvement over the version 1, that was a very average lens. It's much better optically (almost no CA, extremely low barrel distortion excellent sharpness) and the new mechanical system really adds to its versatility.

Coming from the 4x5 world, I was always extremely frustrated by the fixed direction of the shift related to the tilt on every other TS / PC lens. This 24mm TS/E itself is the very item that prevents me to buy a D800.My 2 cents about the cons though : the locking screws for the movements are really a pain in the ass. they barely tighten the lens enough, but get stuck very easily.

About the sharpness, it is very sharp all over the field, but under some circumstances it may appear less sharp as other lenses. In my case, I use DxO as a RAW converter, that applies by default some sharpening (much better than a simple sharpen filter in PS) on the lenses that have a correction module for it. As there is no correction module available for the TS-E lenses due to the changing nature of the image circle, it may appear softer than my 24-105L (for example), if no sharpening is added. To me distortion is never a problem but I need a little extra sharpening compared to the lenses that have a module in DxO, as the software always gives extra sharp images by default for the corrected lenses.

Aside from that it is a very big and heavy lens (I was shocked when I opened the box), with a large 82mm filter thread (seems to become the new pro lenses standard).The focus ring is a pleasure on itself, smooth and greasy like a Leica lens.In one word if I had to keep one lens in my collection, the 24 TS-E would be the one.

One word as well about the 90mm TS-E; although it lacks the same independent tilt / shift feature of the 17mm and 24mm II, this is simply the sharpest tele lens I ever had, period. that stuff is simply amazing, sharper than the 100mm macro, but with much more possibilities due to the tilt function. It focuses very close and in combination with the EF macro tubes, it has replaced without regrets my 100mm macro. I just wish it would have the improved mechanics of the 24mm, but the optics are so sharp, I can live with it.

Thought I would have great use for it, I did not buy the 45mm since here a version 2 would be a must; the separate tilt / shift is really missing on such a versatile lens, and optically it is very, very average, not worth the money IMO. Please Canon push a bit of the version 2 of the 45mm, it needs urgent replacement.Now I am thinking about the 17mm TS-E, I am just a bit scared about the protruding lens with no hood for protection.

One thing I forgot, the 24mm TS-E is compatible with the extender 1.4 (though I can only speak for version 2), that gives a very decent 34mm TS-E.

I used this lens on the fireworks couples time, I love the result very much.

No worries if the 90mm is not an L, sharpness is simply amazing, can't see any colour difference with the 24mm, no distortion, super flat field, no CA. Quality speaking it would deserve the "L" without hesitation. The optical formula being a simple telephoto with a 6/5 (lenses/groups), with no UD, aspheric or other special glass, I guess Canon sees it as too simple to deserve the red ring, though it is a stellar lens.